I think people are entitled to love people of the same sex, it is their life and is completely acceptable... however I do consider it against human nature in terms of procreation, which is what life actually is. Homosexuality is the opposition to procreation, as is celibacy, which certain aspects of religion preach. Procreation is a way of life, and anything that goes against procreation is not natural.

I'm aware I may get abused verbally for that view, but it is just my view, and I wouldn't dare force anyone to agree with it, and I wouldn't dare allow it to prevent me having friendship with a gay person. I have a couple of friends in same-sex relationships, and I have no problem with them living their life that way.

But Mr Nichols sounds like he resents the whole thing and is using a time of goodwill to try and spread his resentment, which is wrong.

In which case I trust you also think contraception is "not natural" either?

And why exactly is something "not being natural" an argument against it? We are talking to each other using computers over the Internet on a forum set up to discuss the racing of vehicles powered by high performance internal combustion engines. Nothing we do "is natural" including organised religion.

Homosexuality actually is natural, it has been observed in colonies of mice, for example, that once a colony gets to the optium population size for the available resources that many of the male mice become homosexual - this stops the population of the colony from outgrowing the available resources, sustaining the population of the colony. It is a much safer way of achieving that goal than simply turning down the sex drive (and having less of it) because it is easier to switch having sex between males and females than it is to kick start a lowered sex drive, just look at the giant panda.

People constantly bang on about procreation bring natural and therefore homosexuality being unnatural. That's an old, tired and useless point of view. Try asking all homosexuals to sleep with someone of the opposite sex and ask them how natural it felt.

When I was younger I swear I used to have a pair of lesbian gerbils. They were definitely both female (we checked after we caught one of them humping the other). This went on for several weeks. I know homosexual behaviour has been observed in a very wide variety of animals. I'm sure I've seen a list which included stingrays, warthogs and rattlesnakes.

P.S. The monkey's you are thinking of are called Bonobos. They engage in MASSIVE amounts of recreational sex and it is their response to pretty much any emotional stimulus. If they are angry, excited, bored etc. They don't fight, just shag each other.

People constantly bang on about procreation bring natural and therefore homosexuality being unnatural. That's an old, tired and useless point of view. Try asking all homosexuals to sleep with someone of the opposite sex and ask them how natural it felt.

I'm with you on this front.

Besides, by that logic, contraception or the other ways to have a good time without penetration are unnatural. (And it could be argued the right of passage through certain "bases" is pretty essential to ever being able to procreate if you so wish anyway...)

I say this, does the world really need more people? We have a population that is heading rapidly toward unsustainability. If we were facing extinction because every man had gone gay and every woman gone lesbian then I see the point, but until that time, who cares if someone falls for a guy or a girl. Let them, it's their life.

I read a great book called "Dr Sex" by T.C. Boyle. I believe a (not very good) movie was made about it. It really opened up my mind to the realities of human sex. It's amazing just how broad the spectrum is with all manner of sex-related things and it makes one realise that reality is not just some black and white "hetero versus homosexual" thing (even if many of us realised that already), but a sliding scale that encompasses a huge variety of different sexual preferences. I have to say, reading this book made the whole discussion on "gays versus straights" seem ludicrous, especially since most of the people on both sides of the argument probably secretly have some urges or have participated or fantasised about things which many others may consider to be "against the norm". Once we accept that there is really no "norm", and that it's just some concept some people came up with, presumably because it benefited them in some way, the sooner we'll stop being so narrow-minded.

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

But you could also say quoting such extremes does more to polarise arguments rather than help them.

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

But you could also say quoting such extremes does more to polarise arguments rather than help them.

Absolutely not. As an organisation the Catholic Church preaches against allowing gays to marry upon some moral high ground yet as an organisation it systematically attempted (and succeeded for a while) at covering up the abuse of children by priests within its organisation. Its position as an organisation which has any moral standing has no credibility.

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

But you could also say quoting such extremes does more to polarise arguments rather than help them.

Absolutely not. As an organisation the Catholic Church preaches against allowing gays to marry upon some moral high ground yet as an organisation it systematically attempted (and succeeded for a while) at covering up the abuse of children by priests within its organisation. Its position as an organisation which has any moral standing has no credibility.

Actually I am not defending the Catholic Church, far from it, I very much support same sex marriage.

However I also support the right of individuals to hold religious beliefs so long as they are lawful, and I support their right to debate on that basis.

When it comes to the subject of same sex marriage, to play the child abuse card and put forth extremist views is not particularly helpful to either side of the argument if you favour rational debate.

There are plenty of debates on YouTube on the question of morality and the roman catholic church, one of the good ones being the Intelligence2 debate with Christopher hitchens and stephen fry. Also, I think there is bound to be a bit more intolerance towards the church these days because more and more people are seeing what a corrupt organisation it is, as well as being based on totally irrational beliefs.. and the fact that much of our lives has been taken up pandering to these people and its now time to be more tolerant in general..

I think people are entitled to love people of the same sex, it is their life and is completely acceptable... however I do consider it against human nature in terms of procreation, which is what life actually is. Homosexuality is the opposition to procreation, as is celibacy, which certain aspects of religion preach. Procreation is a way of life, and anything that goes against procreation is not natural.

I'm aware I may get abused verbally for that view, but it is just my view, and I wouldn't dare force anyone to agree with it, and I wouldn't dare allow it to prevent me having friendship with a gay person. I have a couple of friends in same-sex relationships, and I have no problem with them living their life that way.

But Mr Nichols sounds like he resents the whole thing and is using a time of goodwill to try and spread his resentment, which is wrong.

In which case I trust you also think contraception is "not natural" either?

And why exactly is something "not being natural" an argument against it? We are talking to each other using computers over the Internet on a forum set up to discuss the racing of vehicles powered by high performance internal combustion engines. Nothing we do "is natural" including organised religion.

Homosexuality actually is natural, it has been observed in colonies of mice, for example, that once a colony gets to the optium population size for the available resources that many of the male mice become homosexual - this stops the population of the colony from outgrowing the available resources, sustaining the population of the colony. It is a much safer way of achieving that goal than simply turning down the sex drive (and having less of it) because it is easier to switch having sex between males and females than it is to kick start a lowered sex drive, just look at the giant panda.

Thats quite interesting about the mice... though picturing a massive colony of mice in an underground cavern seems to have taken over my thoughts now. I love teh mouses.

And yes, contraception is unnatural, as is colouring/cutting your hair, tattoos, wearing clothing and everything else humans do pretty much. Didn't say I have a problem with it being unnatural, like I said I have friends who are in same-sex relationships, I go out and play pool every thursday with a gay friend. I just consider it unnatural for it's lack of fruition in regards to giving life, it feels like an unnatural thing to me, but its perfectly natural for other people such as my friend. To be honest its weirder thinking of him being with a woman than with a man. He has his views/feelings, I have mine, you have yours, as long as we don't force it upon one another like some religious types try and do, then we'll all be fine

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

But you could also say quoting such extremes does more to polarise arguments rather than help them.

Absolutely not. As an organisation the Catholic Church preaches against allowing gays to marry upon some moral high ground yet as an organisation it systematically attempted (and succeeded for a while) at covering up the abuse of children by priests within its organisation. Its position as an organisation which has any moral standing has no credibility.

However I also support the right of individuals to hold religious beliefs so long as they are lawful, and I support their right to debate on that basis.

When it comes to the subject of same sex marriage, to play the child abuse card and put forth extremist views is not particularly helpful to either side of the argument if you favour rational debate.

Well said Biffa.

_________________Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

This might not be 100% accurate but I believe that every known species that engages in sex as a past time (Not solely for reproduction) engages in same sex relation ships. .

Many species of animal also engage in cannibalism (fratricide, rape, arbitrary killing, theft...) so what are you saying?

_________________Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

_________________Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

But you could also say quoting such extremes does more to polarise arguments rather than help them.

Absolutely not. As an organisation the Catholic Church preaches against allowing gays to marry upon some moral high ground yet as an organisation it systematically attempted (and succeeded for a while) at covering up the abuse of children by priests within its organisation. Its position as an organisation which has any moral standing has no credibility.

Without condoning any abuse or its cover up by the Catholic Church, if you're going to universalize and group people together then consider the findings of a Australian study presented to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland:

Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestationHomosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactionsHomosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children

If you live by the 'moral' sword then die by the 'moral' sword...

_________________Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring up the child abuse "card" in such a discussion . The Roman Catholic church, as an organisation, has been demonstrated to be rich, powerful, corrupt and criminal. These are the same people who decide what "ordinary" catholics should believe by claiming they are passing on the word of god. If you are a good obedient Roman Catholic, you should believe and agree with what they say, and be subservient to the message. If it turns out that this organisation systematically sought to cover up child rape, I think there is a very relevant and obvious link when we are on the subject of sexual preferences, tolerance and what is "normal" or "natural". Apart from making the Roman Catholic Church complicit in unspeakable crimes, it also displays an astonishing level of hypocrisy.

Biffa, to dismiss this and to say it is not helpful (or as an "extreme' statement), when discussing the issue of same sex marriage and the support, or lack of it, from the church and therefore from many believers as a result of this religious influence, one can only assume you mean it is not helpful to your argument.

I have been watching a few debates involving religion over the past few days and it is a very common tactic of the religious side to dismiss anything which they believe and which they are told to believe, which by today's moral standards is generally accepted as abhorrent, as "unhelpful for the purposes of engaging in progressive discourse". No, its NOT unhelpful, because religious values, beliefs and teachings for example concerning homosexuals, are the cause of much bigotry in the world today. The only difference is, that religious folks can justify the intolerance and bigotry by saying "God said it, so don't blame me". If this is the general attitude of the Roman Catholic church and its members, and if it is Gods will, then I think it is very valid to explain and acknowledge this in the context of any discussion on gay marriage.

I'm kind of with Alien on this. I think any institution that preaches this sort of bigoted BS will get exactly what it deserves. Less and less relevance in modern society. To some extent Nichols is only preaching to the converted. I'm an atheist myself but if I were running a major organised religion I would be trying to show how inclusive it can be during its major festivals rather than trying to put significant sections of societies nose out of joint.

As for that old chestnut of "it's not natural" well that's as maybe but I am also in that camp. Straight. Happily married for fourteen years and no kids entirely through choice. I had a vasectomy within a few years of getting married after my wife an I decided before we got married that neither of us thought we were the parenting types.

I also like the argument of the gay couple will appreciate it more and only get married when its a worthwhile relationship. I tend to agree. The whole sanctity of marriage thing is such BS when it comes to creating convincing arguments against gay couples getting married. A couple who got married on the same day as us split up less than six months later. SIX MONTHS! And that's before you get in to celebrity short marriages.

The sanctity of marriage in general has been declining rapidly over years, to the point where a good percentage of people from my school were married before they'd finished sixth form/college, and were readily single again within the next year. It seemed to be a case of "In a relationship for a month or more? Get married!" and then "Married for a month or more with no kids? Commit adultery and get divorced!" or "Married with kids before age 20? Commit adultery and get divorced and indulge in bitter disputes over your child!"

This is just what I get from people from my school. I could just be from a f'ed up area with an obsession with marriage and subsequent divorce with kids in the mix. I can't imagine it could possibly be any worse by gay couples to get married. Like someone else said, they might appreciate the value of it more.

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring up the child abuse "card" in such a discussion .

True, just as its perfectly acceptable to balance the equation and bring up the awful child abuse statistics from the other side of the discussion. Neither is acceptable.

domdonald wrote:

I have been watching a few debates involving religion over the past few days and it is a very common tactic of the religious side to dismiss anything which they believe and which they are told to believe. The only difference is, that religious folks can justify the intolerance and bigotry by saying "God said it, so don't blame me". If this is the general attitude of the Roman Catholic church and its members, and if it is Gods will, then I think it is very valid to explain and acknowledge this in the context of any discussion on gay marriage.

Wow. So by that standard I could write that many [enter group you wish to disparage] resort to argument x by invoking reason y and its totally invalid because of z....Sorry, that's just such a weak misrepresentation of the position that's different to yours - kinda like the "dismiss anything which they believe" routine you accuse others of exploiting.

_________________Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

I just thought of something. Considering certain members of the catholic church attitude to young boys and there way of dealing with such things, isn't a bit of a homophobic rant out of place for them?

Maybe someone should explain to the Catholic Church that the immorality doesn't start when you switch from having sex with women to sex with men, it's when you switch from consenting adult men to non consenting boys.

But you could also say quoting such extremes does more to polarise arguments rather than help them.

Absolutely not. As an organisation the Catholic Church preaches against allowing gays to marry upon some moral high ground yet as an organisation it systematically attempted (and succeeded for a while) at covering up the abuse of children by priests within its organisation. Its position as an organisation which has any moral standing has no credibility.

Without condoning any abuse or its cover up by the Catholic Church, if you're going to universalize and group people together then consider the findings of a Australian study presented to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland:

Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestationHomosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactionsHomosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children

The Australian Federation for the Family in the latter part of 1990 submitted a 46-page document on homosexuality to the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland. This was in response to a government inquiry into whether to decriminalize homosexuality. Federation spokesman Jack Sonnemann says homosexuality is devastating to any culture that encourages its lifestyle. He says, ‘People with an alcohol problem do not need more ready availability of drink, they need to learn to run dry.’ His meticulously documented submission points out some frightening facts apart from the horrifying spread of AIDS among homosexuals:

Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation. Homosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactions. Homosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children. You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree. Most victims of sex murders die at the hands of a homosexual.

how can homosexuality be considered unnatural, when Christianity teaches that world was created in six days and all species were created by god. Any trip to a Natural History Museum prove them wrong.So, if homosexuality is 'unnatural' by believes of the religion that goes against natural history, then who can establish that the religious definition of 'natural' relatively homosexuality is correct? Church was never against slavery. it was perfectly 'natural' for them. Until civil society moved against slavery. Only after that slavery became 'unnatural' for church. Although, it might be difficult to find actual statement from different type of churches stating that slavery is 'unnatural'.They are the biggest hypocrites, those guys promoting religion.

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

The Australian Federation for the Family in the latter part of 1990 submitted a 46-page document on homosexuality to the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland. This was in response to a government inquiry into whether to decriminalize homosexuality. ..... You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree. ......

Having a quick look, it looks like the Australian version of the Westboro Baptist. So 22 years old and by what I would consider Religious nut jobs. so I guess highly credible.

sounds nasty

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

how can homosexuality be considered unnatural, when Christianity teaches that world was created in six days and all species were created by god. Any trip to a Natural History Museum prove them wrong.So, if homosexuality is 'unnatural' by believes of the religion that goes against natural history, then who can establish that the religious definition of 'natural' relatively homosexuality is correct? Church was never against slavery. it was perfectly 'natural' for them. Until civil society moved against slavery. Only after that slavery became 'unnatural' for church. Although, it might be difficult to find actual statement from different type of churches stating that slavery is 'unnatural'.They are the biggest hypocrites, those guys promoting religion.

To clarify my stance on the 'natural' thing, it has nothing to do with religion as far as I'm concerned. To me, religion is even more unnatural! The thought of some invisible entity creating the world and the stars and everything else, then planting dinosaur bones to fool the non believers, planting an apple tree then punishing humans for eating from the apple tree, asking a father to sacrifice his child, allowing the heavenly son to be killed (twice) and allowed the mass poverty throughout his land, despite most of the poverty-stricken actually being believers... well lets just say I don't like the concept of that particular religion, and I'm not really big on any religion. But as with my stance on many things, I wouldn't wish to change anyone else's opinions on it, as their beliefs or inclinations are for them to decide on, not me. As long as they don't try and sway my mind or tell me that my beliefs are wrong, then I can be happy.

Though, if given the choice between abolishing one thing, mosquitos, homosexuality, or religion, I'd instantly pick religion and go celebrate with the homosexual community at the victory, whilst complaining that mosquitos are really f'ing annoying. I kinda like the gay people, they're good fun. And according to the posts I've seen here regarding the animal world (and further research into it I might add), it really isn't unnatural. It just doesn't make sense to me in terms of nature. I think my ramble is finished.

Also, a sexual murder spree DOES sound nasty!

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

Without condoning any abuse or its cover up by the Catholic Church, if you're going to universalize and group people together then consider the findings of a Australian study presented to the Criminal Justice Commission of Queensland:

Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestationHomosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactionsHomosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children

If you live by the 'moral' sword then die by the 'moral' sword...

Even assuming those stats are accurate (which subsequent posters have cast doubt on) it is a total logic fail; "Homosexuals" are not an organisation. They have not invested huge resources in systematically covering up the actions of others.

The issue with the Catholic Church is not the individual cases of abuse, these cases were (I hope) not sanctioned by the Vatican and were the actions of individuals and cases like these have the potential to happen anywhere where adults work with children regardless of religion, non religion or sexual orientation.

The issue with the Catholic Church is it KNEW these abuses were going on, that they were widespread and that it then went to great lengths to cover it up, because it felt saving the face, protecting its brand was more important than protecting the children under its care.

The Australian Federation for the Family in the latter part of 1990 submitted a 46-page document on homosexuality to the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland. This was in response to a government inquiry into whether to decriminalize homosexuality. ..... You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree. ......

The Australian Federation for the Family in the latter part of 1990 submitted a 46-page document on homosexuality to the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland. This was in response to a government inquiry into whether to decriminalize homosexuality. ..... You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree. ......

Having a quick look, it looks like the Australian version of the Westboro Baptist. So 22 years old and by what I would consider Religious nut jobs. so I guess highly credible.

sounds nasty

Actually that line I thought was very interesting.

Quote:

You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree.

Is it saying a Homosexual on a sexual murdering spree is more likely to kill you than a Heterosexual on a sexual murdering spree?

To me it just doesn't make sense. It sorta says a Heterosexual person on a sexual murdering spree is 15 times less likely to kill you.

all this stuff about sexual murder spree must be read using voice of Bender from Futurama. What a pile of BS

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

Brain of Ireland has either attempted to use stupid stats to make a point and not realized the kind of people behind the stats or he is happy with the stats and the people who are claiming them and has now associated himself with their way of thinking............

Brain of Ireland has either attempted to use stupid stats to make a point and not realized the kind of people behind the stats or he is happy with the stats and the people who are claiming them and has now associated himself with their way of thinking............

Either way I am astounded that anyone would use "stats" like that to prove a point.

Just because you have sex with someone of the same sex as you doesn't mean you'll be more likely to murder them. It just doesn't. Just like if you are a Catholic it doesn't make you more likely to get a sudden urge to look at kiddie porn.

Anyway, continue the topic, I'm finding it interesting reading even if I don't feel able to contribute much!

Just like if you are a Catholic it doesn't make you more likely to get a sudden urge to look at kiddie porn.

Just to clarify, before anyone suggests otherwise, this is not what I have been saying.

I have made it clear from my first post on the topic my issue is with organised religion and those in at the top. It is they who are spreading the message of hate against gay people on a platform of supposed higher morality and word of God yet it is they who covered up the aforementioned widespread cases of child abuse of children in their care. My point has never been that being Catholic makes someone more likely to be a child abuser, or even that Catholics are responsible for more child abuse, nor has it been that being Catholic makes someone a homophobe. Indeed, there are many Catholics who are not opposed to gay marriage, although this is almost certainly fewer in number compared to other Christian groups, at least fewer in terms of those who would openly speak in favour. The fact is that the Catholic Church (as an organisation, not individual people/congregations) does not care about wha is morally right, it only cares about spreading its dogma and protecting its image. That is why it is against gay marriage, that is why it spends huge resources against condom use in Africa and that is why it covered up the abuse scandals.